+1

I don't know, I know GATT hasn't had the whitest track record, but the fact that this one developer is the only one they had outstanding problems with makes me think it is something on Biart's end that is causing the problem. If GATT was bullying, threatening, or whatever then you have to ask yourself A) If they are doing it to everyone, why is it that Biart is the only company that is fighting back or B) Why are they only targeting Biart if Biart didn't do anything to aggravate whatever it you think GATT might have done.

I am somewhat generalizing here, as I (and everyone else besides GATT and Biart) don't have all the details, but based on the evidence (the contract and the e-mail assuming they are legit--and I don't know why they'd post a fake contract when many other devs can attest to it's existence) I definitely think that Biart was NOT acting very diplomatic EVEN IF GATT had done something to initiate the problems. If GATT gave them problems they should have talked to their lawyers, not tell GATT to give them money in all caps, curse, and threaten to go to the press.

Personally I didn't rate the games, but that's a matter of opinion :)

To pitch their debut offering at $10 was a mistake though, since the standard bundle price point at that stage was $4/$5. Humble had put out some tremendous bundles, and in order to get a foothold, and generate some serious sales in a competitive marketplace, around the five dollar mark was where it needed to be priced. While there were always going to be a segment of customers who would buy at the ten dollar level, the established bundlers had already eroded the value of indie bundles to the point where many people just weren't prepared to accept this price. Sad, but true, as borne out by the miserable sales figures.

For ten dollars, particularly in a Steam sale, you can get huge bang for your ten bucks. You could buy any two [non-Android] Humble Bundles and get a collection of games which would crush the IFK offerings into the tarmac, then reverse over them for good measure. For me (and many others), the bundle just wasn't worth it. As for the follow-up bundles, I agree with you wholeheartedly. "Lame" doesn't even begin to cover it...

Couple that with shady marketing, fake giveaway announcements to entice people into their Steam group chat, a website that, in the early stages, looked as though it had been designed by a chimpanzee with learning difficulties, and other general ballbaggery, it's not hard to see why this venture was as successful as North Korean rocket launch...

Totally agree. Having re-read the article, I'm still unsure of the timeline though.

My initial interpretation was that GATT were not going to be able to fulfil their financial obligations, but would try to honour the contract "to some extent". Re-reading the article, I'm not sure whether or not that is correct, but I'm still confused as to the sequence of events.

With GATT not being able to pay the other developers per the contract (they had already entered into payment arrangements with some), did Biart panic? In the light of GATT's problems, did they try to sell the game to another bundler (in clear breach of the contract, although in all likelihood the contract would not be fulfilled by a cash strapped GATT) to reduce the impact, or was the deal made before they learnt of GATT's financial crisis (due to a misunderstanding of the contract, or simple greed)?

Threatening to withdraw keys sucks. Was it an clever piece of brinkmanship (which clearly had the desired effect, in that it motivated GATT to try and resolve the issue), or simply a nasty threat from a nasty organisation? Who can say?

There have clearly been mistakes on both sides - big ones - but it's difficult to work out exactly what went down between GATT and Biart without hearing the other party's version of events.

Well my main point for posting that is to show how GATT twisted the story last time, and lied/slandered the author of that article. So I don't really trust anything they say unless it's verified by a third party. I'm sure more will come out about this though, so we shall see.

Given the way Biart was responding, his ambiguity quickly developed into something more serious (blackmailing, bullying etc.). But maybe you're right and he really didn't understand what he was signing (his fault anyways) and Indie Kick was exaggerating his responses.

I see what you mean, they bit off more than they could chew. That seems realistic as does Biart's choice not to deliver.

I know everyone in the USA is sue happy, but it's not that easy considering Biart7 was in another country. Then you have to decide if it's even worth it after lawyer and court fees, would you even make any money back or simply make an example out of him? The biggest question would be, would you even win the court case? We've seen over the past year that even when something is blatantly wrong, all it takes is a judge who doesn't know what the case is about to make the wrong ruling.

Nah, they all start out small.

It just becomes more apparent when they go AAA.

Its still pretty much of a jackass move giving away those keys for their own promotion and advertising.

Or they're trying to shine a much brighter light on themselves by simple victimisation (hurr durr we never received any moneys for our games but hurr durr we're so generous we'll give you this shitty game and even throw in a discount for it's shitty sequel!).
Truth to be told, I don't think any of the sides are really coming out with it all. Only God and them knows what really happened and who did what so it's kinda unfair for us to take any sides.

"As far as I'm concerned now both parties suck :|"

+1

Same, it looked crap from the beginning.